Are people basically good? Both Christians and non-Christians agree, “People are basically good.” Barna Research Group (click to open) in 2020 found that 69% of adults say, “People are basically good.”
Does life experience show us that “People are basically good”?
Dr. Clay Jones, in We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously (click to open) so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer, surveys only some of the most horrendous atrocities perpetuated by human beings, and these only within the last 100 years. Aaron Brake provides this survey. If you want the sickening details, you should read Jones’ article.
Soviet Union: From 1917-89, 20 to 26 million people were murdered for political reasons, including 6 million Ukrainians who were starved to death.
China: Under the Chinese communists, 26 to 30 million “counter-revolutionaries” were murdered or died in prison. Mao Tse Tung boasted of burying 46,000 scholars alive.
Japan: In December 1937, over 300,000 Chinese were raped, tortured, and murdered in the city of Nanking.
Turkey: From 1915-23, 1.2 million Armenians were murdered, introducing the phrase “crimes against humanity.”
Cambodia: From 1975-79, under Pol Pot, 2 million Cambodians were murdered out of a population of 7 million to return to an agrarian culture.
Rwanda: In 1994, out of a population of 8 million, 800,000 people were murdered in 100 days, mostly by machetes.
Germany: 13 million people were murdered in the Holocaust, including approximately 6 million Jews. But perhaps most frightening is that the Germans knew that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews long before he came into power.
Consider that as early as August 13, 1920, almost two decades before the beginning of World War II (1939-1942) and at the beginning of his political rise, Hitler gave a speech entitled, “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” He said Jews were “criminals” and “parasites” who should be punished with death. Hitler released the two-volume Mein Kampf (My Struggle) in 1925 and 1926. In it, he reflected on the role of German Jews during World War I: “If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas,” then millions of “real Germans” would not have died.
Many average Germans, then, may not have pulled the trigger or dropped Zyklon-B into the gas chambers, but they knew Hitler wanted to kill the Jews long before he came into power. And it wasn’t a few Germans: 10,005 camps have been identified positively. The major camps had many satellite camps. For example, Dachau had 174 satellite camps, and Auschwitz had 50 satellite camps and 7,000 guards. Mauthausen had 5,700 people staffing it and its satellite camps.
And what did these satellite camps do? They provided hundreds of thousands of slave laborers for corporations with names like Daimler-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Krupp, and I G. Farben, who produced the Zyklon-B used in the gas chambers. The Bayer Corporation was a subsidiary of I. G. Farben and sold Zyklon-B out of its sales office. Of course, countless administrators, typists, rail workers, policemen, truck drivers, and factory workers knew—and their families knew—what was going on.
8. United States: Since 1973, 50 million unborn human beings have been murdered through abortion, largely through scalding alive with saline solution, dismemberment, or suctioning apart piece by piece. The number of abortions after the reversal of Roe v. Wade (click to open), according to The Guttmacher Institute.
Reflecting on the horrible things human beings can do to one another, we may be tempted to say, “That’s inhuman!” On the contrary, humans did this! This is the human condition.
We compare ourselves to these murderers and say, “I am basically good because I am not like that.” Jesus said we are comparing ourselves to the wrong person: “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19). We are basically bad people because we are not as holy as God. God is the standard. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Someone else will defend their basic goodness by saying, “But I do nice things.” Again, here is Jesus’ response to this excuse:
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full (Luke 6:32-34). You and I are basically bad people because we are sinners and sinners can do nice things. We are sinners by nature before we are sinners by actions.
Again, Jesus said in Luke 11:13, “Being evil, [you] know how to give good gifts unto your children.” Jesus did not say that good people give good gifts and do nice things, but rather that evil people do nice things. Hitler did nice things. He smiled at the children and walked his dog.
I want to examine different theological views on people's sinfulness, from left to right, i.e., from the most liberal to the most Biblical: Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, Augustinianism, Semi-Augustinianism.
1. We Are Not Sinners: Pelagianism
The controversy over people's sinfulness between Pelagianists and the Augustinianists originated in the early 5th century between the theologian Augustine and the British monk Pelagius.
Pelagius was a popular teacher who lived in Rome for a long time from A. D. 383—410 and sought to reform both the sinful city and church. He lived a life of self-denial thinking that would earn him salvation. His social reform gained followers and momentum, and he heard Augustine’s message of grace. Pelagius saw salvation by God’s grace as a threat to his moral reform. Grace would be a license to sin.
The controversy between him and Augustine ignited when he heard someone read Augustine’s prayers from his Confessions: “O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command.” Pelagius was outraged by the second part of the prayer, which stated that only God could enable us to do what He commanded. Pelagius appealed to Rome to have Augustine’s prayer censured.
Pelagius believed whatever God commanded, we should, in our strength, accomplish. The reason Pelagius so opposed the second part of the prayer is because Pelagius did not believe in original sin or the transfer of Adam’s sin to every person since the Fall. Pelagius believes that Adam’s fall only affected him. Pelagius rejected original sin. Original sin was not the first sin of Adam but the result of the first sin, i.e., the sinful nature of each of us.
Augustine evidently had before him a work by Pelagius, now lost, entitled Defence of Free Will, and he quoted from it:
Nothing good, and nothing evil, on account of which we are deemed either laudable or blameworthy, is born with us but is done by us; for we are born not fully developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; we are formed naturally without either virtue or vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will, the only thing in him is what God has formed in him (The Anti-Pelagian Works’, The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Vol 2, ed. Marcus Dods, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1872, 58).
Pelagius also taught that instead of every person being born a sinner, each person is born in the same condition of innocence as Adam was created and becomes a sinner by following Adam’s bad example. Pelagius also taught that a sinner could live a life of perfection without any help from the grace of God.
More church councils condemned Pelagius than any other heretic. His view was censured in A. D. 431 (Ephesus).
The dark shadow of Peligianism is cast over us today. Michael Horton has some strong words condemning the lingering influence of Charles Finney, whom he considers pelagian:
Jerry Falwell calls him [Finney] “one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham.” I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Charles Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney’s work was required reading. The New York revivalist was the oft-quoted and celebrated champion of the Christian singer Keith Green and the Youth With A Mission organization. He is particularly esteemed among the leaders of the Christian Right and the Christian Left, by both Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis (Sojourners’ magazine), and his imprint can be seen in movements that appear to be diverse but, in reality, are merely heirs to Finney’s legacy. From the Vineyard movement and the Church Growth Movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, “Finney lives on!” (The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney) (click to open).
Charles Finney was Pelagian in strongly rejecting the core doctrines of the Christian faith, including original sin, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and justification by faith. No one can be a believer and repudiate these fundamentals of the faith.
Our focus is on original sin or the sinfulness of people. Finney stated in his Systematic Theology:
“Moral depravity cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor in any lapsed or fallen state of nature ... Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness” [Systematic Theology, 245]. Charles Finney would have agreed that people are basically good.
Concerning salvation, Finney wrote “that [sinners] are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end” (Systematic Theology, 249). One of Finney’s most preached sermons was: “How to Change Your Heart.” Because people are basically good, they do not need the grace of God.
The Word of God clearly teaches people are basically sinful because Adam’s sin was passed on to his descendants. We inherited Father Adam’s sinfulness. David confessed, “In sin did my mother conceive me” in Psalm 51:5. Before salvation, Paul says we were “children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2) and by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Our intellect is affected by sin (Eph. 4:18), our emotions (Rom. 1:21, 24, 26), our will (Rom. 6:20), and our bodies (Rom. 6:12; 7:18).
Why did Christ die, according to Finney? God knew that “The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted …. If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless” (p. 209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the “moral influence” theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross, he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which “… assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement .… It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone” (p. 217).
Here, we see the Domino Effect. When one doctrine is rejected, others soon fall.
Because of our sinfulness, we cannot save ourselves. Paul taught salvation by grace and not works in Titus 3:5: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.”
1. We Are Not Sinners: Pelagianism
2. We Are Sinners on Our Own: Semi-Pelagianism
Semi-pelagianism, unlike Pelagianism, believes in original sin, which resulted not in total depravity but partial depravity.
Roger Olson, quoting Nazarene theologian Orton Wiley, states that semi-Pelagianism teaches that in the partially depraved nature of man, he makes the first move toward God in procuring salvation but then needs divine grace to move further. The initiating act of man provokes God’s response with the necessary grace to complete salvation (Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2006, p. 30). Because the will is not totally depraved, the sinner can initially seek salvation unaided by God’s grace.
Historical theologian Rebecca Harden Weaver of Union Presbyterian Seminary (Virginia), in her book Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy (Mercer University Press, 1996), says “semi-Pelagianism” is tied inextricably to the teachings of French monastic critic of Augustine, John Cassian. Cassian argued that God waits to see the “exercise of a goodwill” before responding with grace. This is what was condemned at Orange in 529.
Semi-Pelagians teach that the sinner takes the initiative in salvation. Conversely, Paul in Romans 3:11 wrote that God takes the first step in salvation: “There is none what understands, there is none that seek after God.” Jesus taught this reality in John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him.” Jesus also predicted the ministry of the Holy Spirit who would “convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment: of sin, because they believe not” in John 16:8-9.
1. We Are Not Sinners: Pelagianism
2. We Are Sinners on Our Own: Semi-Pelagianism
3. We Are Saved Sinners but We Can Lose It: Arminianism
Theologians like A. A. Hodge divide theology into three categories: Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, and Augustianism (click to open).
Semipelagianism arose during Augustine’s life and ministry from its founder, John Cassian. The schoolmen knew this movement later as semipelagianism. Finally, today is known as Arminianism.
Hodge equates semi-Pelagians with Arminianism, but some Arminians argue the two views are different.
Reformed Arminian theologian Roger E. Olson vehemently disagrees that Semipelagianism and Arminianism are the same. He argues that while Semipelagianism teaches that man can take the initial step in salvation, which is not true of Arminianism.
Olson, in his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, wrote, “I quote numerous Arminian theologians, from Arminius himself to Thomas Oden, to show that all classical Arminians believe that the initiative in salvation is God’s grace (prevenient grace or universal grace) and that any good humans do, including the first exercise of a good will toward God, is so enabled by grace that there is no room for boasting.”
Charles Ryrie prefers efficacious grace to prevenient grace. Ryrie ties the efficacious grace to the doctrine of original sin: “The theological support of the doctrine of efficacious grace is vitally connected with the doctrine of sin. If man is incapable of coming to God, then he must have effective aid in the form of efficacious grace.” Ryrie defines efficacious grace as “the work of the Holy Spirit which effectively move men to believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour” (The Holy Spirit, 61). The doctrine of efficacious grace is taught in Romans 8:29-30.
Another Reformed Arminian and Free Will Baptist, William Pinson, who is president of Welch College, a Free Will Baptist institution in Nashville, Tennessee, says the Free Will Baptist tradition stuck with Augustinian-Reformed doctrines of original sin and satisfaction-substitutionary atonement and justification as imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
Reformed Arminians reject unconditional election, irresistible grace, and limited atonement. Pinson says Reformed Arminians do not believe one can “lose salvation” but do believe one can consciously and willfully commit apostasy—falling from grace by rejecting the grace that once saved them (this would be a rejection of perseverance of the saints). See the article Meet a Reformed Arminian at the gospelcoaltion.org.
So reformed Arminians like Olson and William Penson are 1-point Calvinists who believe only in total depravity.
Arminians also reject the Calvinistic doctrine of monergistic regeneration, i.e., that God must regenerate the sinner before the sinner can, by faith, be saved. I also do not believe in monergistic regeneration. So where does that put me? I am not Pelagian because I believe in original sin. I am not semi-pelagian because I believe God initiates salvation. I am not Arminian because I do not believe in prevenient grace but in efficacious grace. I agree, however, with the Arminian that regeneration is not monergistic. So, where do I fall? To start, I do not land in the Augustinian camp.
1. We Are Not Sinners: Pelagianism
2. We Are Sinners on Our Own: Semi-Pelagianism
3. We Are Saved Sinners but We Can Lose It: Arminianism
4. We Are Sinners with No Responsibility: Augustinianism or Strict Calvinism
Augustinianism or Calvinism is correct on original sin. But off on total depravity, which they equate with total inability. The sinner can not believe but must be regenerated before faith, which is given to the sinner; thus is called monergistic regeneration. In monergistic regeneration, God gives the gift of faith to the sinner whom God regenerated without the sinner’s knowledge or consent. For example, Wayne Grudem writes: “Yet it is certainly possible for God to bring regeneration to an infant even before he or she is born” (Systematic Theology, 500). In other words, God regenerates sinners without their knowledge or consent. If this is the case, why did Jesus not just regenerate Nicodemus instead of instructing him: “You must be born again” in John 3:7. If faith is a gift given to the already regenerated sinner, why did Paul answer the Philippian jailor’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:30-31).
5. We Are Sinners with Responsibility: Semi-Augustinianism
So, with Augustine, I accept original sin and the need for not just universal, prevenient, but efficacious grace. I do not believe, however, that God regenerates the sinner before he believes but that God regenerates at the moment the sinner believes. Faith is not a work of man for salvation, which Calvinists like R. C. Sproul would argue.
R. C. Sproul, in an article, Regeneration Precedes Faith, wrote: One of the most dramatic moments in my life, during which the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: “Regeneration Precedes Faith.” These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning.
Faith is rather the work of God, as Jesus stated in John 6:29, “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.” God draws the sinner, convicts the sinner of the sin of rejecting Christ, and by His grace, helps the sinner to believe. Ryrie states “Faith is also part of the total package of salvation that is the gift of God (Eph. 2:9); yet faith is commanded in order to be saved” (Acts 16:31) (Basic Theology, 376).
Harold W. Hoehner expands on the concept that faith is not the gift but rather salvation is the gift:
These verses explain “the incomparable riches of His grace” (v. 7), expanding the parenthetical statement in verse 5, It is by grace you have been saved, and adding that the means of this salvation is through faith. Hence the basis is grace and the means is faith alone (cf. Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; 1 Peter 1:5). Faith is not a “work.” It does not merit salvation; it is only the means by which one accepts God’s free salvation.
Paul elaborated, And this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God. Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun “this” (touto). Though some think it refers back to “grace” and others to “faith,” neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter, whereas “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather, the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Eph. 1:15 and 3:1 touto, “this,” refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (2:4–8a), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is “not from yourselves”), but rather, its source is God’s grace for “it is the gift of God” (Harold W. Hoehner, Bible Knowledge Commentary)
Theologians call this synergistic regeneration in contrast to monergistic regeneration. Now, synergistic regeneration can have many advocates, including Roman Catholics. My view, and others like Ryrie, is that our cooperation with God in salvation is not works or sacraments but believing, which is not a work according to Jesus in John 6:29. Also, Paul in Romans 4:3 states that Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for salvation and then in Romans 4:4, Paul added that “to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” In other words, when Abraham believed and was counted righteous, his belief was not a work.
“Are people basically good?”
I hope you can now answer “No.” People are sinful because of original sin. Sinners may not be as sinful as mass murderers, but we are still sinful in comparison to God, who is perfectly holy.
Clay Jones writes: For example, the apostle John wrote, “he who hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15). In other words if you hate, writes John, you are a murderer even if you don’t actually kill. This is true because those who hate but don’t physically kill refrain only for selfish reasons—certainly not because they care for the person they hate. And refraining for selfish reasons doesn’t make you good.
Jesus said that the one who lusts commits adultery in his or her heart (Matt 5:28). Why? Those who fantasize about sex with a neighbor but don’t actually do it refrain either from lack of opportunity or from fear of consequences and not because they honor God or have determined to only cherish their spouse. Taking these verses seriously, then, does anyone get through life without being an adulterous murderer? (We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously, so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer, Clay Jones).
People are basically bad because of our attitudes, not just our actions.
Sinners do not love God with all their hearts. People are basically bad because they do not glorify God.
Thomas Schreiner elaborates on this point: Romans 1:21-25 clarifies that the heart of sin is failing to glorify God as God. The heart of sin is a belittling of God and a scorning of his glory, which involves a failure to glorify and thank him (Rom. 1:21) … Sinners do not give God the supreme place in their lives … people “served created things rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). Sin is not first and foremost the practice of evil deeds but an attitude that gives glory to something other than God. People may be loving to their children and kind to their neighbors and never give a thought to God. The essence of sin is self-worship rather than God-worship … Such a conception of sin helps us understand how people can perform actions that externally conform with righteousness yet remain slaves of sin. These actions are not motivated by a desire to honor and glorify God as God … Actions that externally conform with righteousness may still be sins, in that they are not done for God’s glory and by faith … Slavery to sin does not mean that people always engage in reprehensible behavior. It means that the unregenerate never desire to bring glory to God, but are passionately committed to upholding their own glory and honor (Thomas Schreiner. Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000, 39).
I witnessed to a young man once and was explaining that everyone is born a sinner. He immediately protested, “I am not a sinner.” He was a good guy and the son of a pastor, and he could not comprehend his sinfulness.
Remember the haunting words of Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? And in your name done many wonderful works?” What will Jesus say to these religious workers? “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22-25).
Why will these “basically good people” who did not just do good works in their community but religious works be rejected by Jesus? Because they did not do their works for the glory of God but rather for their own glory. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is rebuking Pharisees who did their religious works to “be seen of man” (Matthew 6:1).
Paul wrote, “There is none that does good, no, not one” (Rom 3:12). If we trust Christ as Savior, God will not just make us good but as righteous as His Son in His sight.